Under his plan, corporations would pay no taxes at all. He states it would be 9% less dividends and investments. They would just use all the profits on dividends and investments.

Further, it would significantly increase taxes paid by the middle class. Most Americans would see their taxes increase tremendously. Given the ongoing protests (which are likely to intensify) its not politically viable. Also, his idea to require a 2/3 vote on tax increases is unconstitutional.

The middle class does not benefit from the government spending money. The rich and the welfare babies do. Cut the welfare, cut the spending--restore the middle class.

EDIT:

To clarify: Your average middle class worker making $50k a year with a small house and a kid or two pays relatively no taxes and still struggles to make ends meet. Under Cain's plan, this worker would end up paying $9000 in taxes, seeing their income fall by nearly 20%. Yeah, not gonna happen.

Blueskies, dividens would still be taxed as personal income. It just reduces the dual taxation of corporations. There's nothing wrong with that in my book, especially considering that the plan will net something like $387 billion less in total revenue, which is money that we need to cut anyhow. Also, I have no problem with not taxing corporations on money that they re-invest into the economy, it only leads to future gains down the line. They invest to be more profitable, more profit leads to more dividens/taxes (and likely more jobs), sounds like a good plan to me!!!

October 12th, 2011, 1:19 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3114

Re: What is 9/9/9?

Don't get me wrong--I don't think it makes sense to tax corporations and also tax their owners.

However, Cain's plan amounts to a large decrease in the taxes paid by the rich and a large increase in taxes paid by the working class. Not gonna happen.

My primary problem with the 9-9-9 plan is that it adds yet another tax upon the American people. Either go with a Flat Tax (my choice) or a Fair Tax, but not both. Do not give the government another source of revenue since it will only encourage them to spend even more. Also, anyone who thinks that this won't morph into 15-15-15 after a few years is only kidding themselves.

_________________

October 13th, 2011, 11:16 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: What is 9/9/9?

slybri19 wrote:

My primary problem with the 9-9-9 plan is that it adds yet another tax upon the American people. Either go with a Flat Tax (my choice) or a Fair Tax, but not both. Do not give the government another source of revenue since it will only encourage them to spend even more. Also, anyone who thinks that this won't morph into 15-15-15 after a few years is only kidding themselves.

Blueskies, no one disagrees with that. Most common people think the rich don't pay their "fair share," and they think that the rich will ultimately pay MORE with a flat tax, but that isn't the case. I say we give them what they want - which will equate to lower income people paying SOMETHING into a system they currently pay nothing into, but I think that's a good thing.

Sly, I agree about the slippery slope. It's just too easy to start inching these taxes up 0.5% here and there.

October 13th, 2011, 2:22 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: What is 9/9/9?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

slybri19 wrote:

My primary problem with the 9-9-9 plan is that it adds yet another tax upon the American people. Either go with a Flat Tax (my choice) or a Fair Tax, but not both. Do not give the government another source of revenue since it will only encourage them to spend even more. Also, anyone who thinks that this won't morph into 15-15-15 after a few years is only kidding themselves.

Blueskies, no one disagrees with that. Most common people think the rich don't pay their "fair share," and they think that the rich will ultimately pay MORE with a flat tax, but that isn't the case. I say we give them what they want - which will equate to lower income people paying SOMETHING into a system they currently pay nothing into, but I think that's a good thing.

Sly, I agree about the slippery slope. It's just too easy to start inching these taxes up 0.5% here and there.

Require 2/3 Congressional vote (both House & Senate) in order to raise taxesorPut it on the November ballot and let us vote on any proposed increase

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

My primary problem with the 9-9-9 plan is that it adds yet another tax upon the American people. Either go with a Flat Tax (my choice) or a Fair Tax, but not both. Do not give the government another source of revenue since it will only encourage them to spend even more. Also, anyone who thinks that this won't morph into 15-15-15 after a few years is only kidding themselves.

Blueskies, no one disagrees with that. Most common people think the rich don't pay their "fair share," and they think that the rich will ultimately pay MORE with a flat tax, but that isn't the case. I say we give them what they want - which will equate to lower income people paying SOMETHING into a system they currently pay nothing into, but I think that's a good thing.

Sly, I agree about the slippery slope. It's just too easy to start inching these taxes up 0.5% here and there.

Require 2/3 Congressional vote (both House & Senate) in order to raise taxesorPut it on the November ballot and let us vote on any proposed increase

That would be a terrible idea. The average person knows nothing about how much tax income is actually required, and obviously would vote against a tax increase every time. This is part of the problem in California. People were given the right to decide what happens with property taxes. So, they voted against every property tax increase since the 70's. That kept CA prop taxes artificially low, while those same people kept voting for numerous social programs. When the average person is given the choice of what gov't programs to have, they make bad decisions. This has been shown time and again. That's why we have elected representatives.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

October 13th, 2011, 8:30 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3114

Re: What is 9/9/9?

Conservatives way overrate the importance of the tax code.

Yes, having a simple and just tax code can go a long way to boosting the economy. However, that's such a tiny, tiny part.

Balancing the budget and restoring sound money is much more important. Every dollar the government spends ultimately comes from the people, so even if people don't pay the tax today, they'll pay it later in the form of tax hikes or inflation. Let's get our spending under control and reform our money system first, then we can undertake taxes after.

Also, "trickle down economics" works--but not in our present system. Liberals often allege that it doesn't work--and they're partly right. It works in theory, but because we are so over-regulated it doesn't work in practice. If we slash taxes on the rich and the business leaders, they won't use that money to create jobs, they'll just invest it in foreign economies or in technology.

Thus, you'll continue to have a bunch of pissed off middle class Americans who are now paying much more in taxes and not seeing any benefit.

Reform the Fed, balance the budget, deregulate industry. Then we can talk tax code.

October 13th, 2011, 11:44 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: What is 9/9/9?

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

TheRealWags wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

slybri19 wrote:

My primary problem with the 9-9-9 plan is that it adds yet another tax upon the American people. Either go with a Flat Tax (my choice) or a Fair Tax, but not both. Do not give the government another source of revenue since it will only encourage them to spend even more. Also, anyone who thinks that this won't morph into 15-15-15 after a few years is only kidding themselves.

Blueskies, no one disagrees with that. Most common people think the rich don't pay their "fair share," and they think that the rich will ultimately pay MORE with a flat tax, but that isn't the case. I say we give them what they want - which will equate to lower income people paying SOMETHING into a system they currently pay nothing into, but I think that's a good thing.

Sly, I agree about the slippery slope. It's just too easy to start inching these taxes up 0.5% here and there.

Require 2/3 Congressional vote (both House & Senate) in order to raise taxesorPut it on the November ballot and let us vote on any proposed increase

That would be a terrible idea. The average person knows nothing about how much tax income is actually required, and obviously would vote against a tax increase every time. This is part of the problem in California. People were given the right to decide what happens with property taxes. So, they voted against every property tax increase since the 70's. That kept CA prop taxes artificially low, while those same people kept voting for numerous social programs. When the average person is given the choice of what gov't programs to have, they make bad decisions. This has been shown time and again. That's why we have elected representatives.

The average American knows nothing about our political process, does that mean we're going to stop allowing them to vote for their representatives? If we could find a way to actually educate the populace on the actual truths (not the perceived ones), then we'd be better off as a nation.

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

Yes, having a simple and just tax code can go a long way to boosting the economy. However, that's such a tiny, tiny part.

Balancing the budget and restoring sound money is much more important. Every dollar the government spends ultimately comes from the people, so even if people don't pay the tax today, they'll pay it later in the form of tax hikes or inflation. Let's get our spending under control and reform our money system first, then we can undertake taxes after.

Also, "trickle down economics" works--but not in our present system. Liberals often allege that it doesn't work--and they're partly right. It works in theory, but because we are so over-regulated it doesn't work in practice. If we slash taxes on the rich and the business leaders, they won't use that money to create jobs, they'll just invest it in foreign economies or in technology.

Thus, you'll continue to have a bunch of pissed off middle class Americans who are now paying much more in taxes and not seeing any benefit.

Reform the Fed, balance the budget, deregulate industry. Then we can talk tax code.

While you have a point, do you seriously believe that the current occupant of the White House or the Democrat-controlled Senate will reform the Fed, balance the budget, or deregulate industry? I didn't think so. We've got to start somewhere and tax reform appears to be the only thing with a chance of passing at this point in time.

_________________

October 14th, 2011, 12:27 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 10004Location: Dallas

Re: What is 9/9/9?

slybri19 wrote:

Blueskies wrote:

Conservatives way overrate the importance of the tax code.

Yes, having a simple and just tax code can go a long way to boosting the economy. However, that's such a tiny, tiny part.

Balancing the budget and restoring sound money is much more important. Every dollar the government spends ultimately comes from the people, so even if people don't pay the tax today, they'll pay it later in the form of tax hikes or inflation. Let's get our spending under control and reform our money system first, then we can undertake taxes after.

Also, "trickle down economics" works--but not in our present system. Liberals often allege that it doesn't work--and they're partly right. It works in theory, but because we are so over-regulated it doesn't work in practice. If we slash taxes on the rich and the business leaders, they won't use that money to create jobs, they'll just invest it in foreign economies or in technology.

Thus, you'll continue to have a bunch of pissed off middle class Americans who are now paying much more in taxes and not seeing any benefit.

Reform the Fed, balance the budget, deregulate industry. Then we can talk tax code.

While you have a point, do you seriously believe that the current occupant of the White House or the Democrat-controlled Senate will reform the Fed, balance the budget, or deregulate industry? I didn't think so. We've got to start somewhere and tax reform appears to be the only thing with a chance of passing at this point in time.

We're not talking about what Obama should do. We're talking about the proposed plan of a Republican.

When a President gets into office they only have so many political policy bullets. Sly made a great example of it in the infrastructure topic.

Obama wasted his bullets on Obamacare and the stimulus program and neither of them worked. So now he's out, and he won't be able to accomplish anything of significance for the rest of this term. If he gets reelected, he'll get more, but for the present time he's a premature lame duck.

If Herman Cain were to get elected and pass this plan, he would be one of the most unpopular presidents of all time.

Let's say I'm a worker making 50-60k a year and I have a wife who used to work but she's been laid off. Herman Cain gets in and passes this plan. Now my taxes go up 20% and my wife is still unemployed--I'm not going to be too happy.

The first thing any Republican does upon taking off should be to pass a comprehensive jobs program, one that will grant real return to the average American in short order. If I had to compromise with Democrats I would say, "fine, we'll go along with additional financial regulation. But we're going to pass a waiver law that says businesses under $X market cap are exempt from 80% of federal regulations."

Then, people would actually become employed, popularity would build, momentum would shift, and you could start doing other things.

Yea, I kinda got off track there. I guess I was mainly responding to your point about the other things that need to be done, because they won't happen under this Administration. It had nothing to do with Cain.

As I've said previously, I don't agree with the 9-9-9 plan. I listed only a couple reasons why, but you just added another in how it would adversely affect the poor. A couple months ago, I outlined my Flat Tax plan in another thread, but I have no idea which one. In it, I explained standard and dependent deductions which would negate taxes for the poor and limit them for the lower middle class. IMO, that system would work and be fair across the board.

Regardless, the tax system must be reformed one way or the other. Practically anything is better than what we have today. By eliminating the tax breaks, loopholes, and subsidies, you not only make the system fairer, you allow businesses and individuals to allocate more time and resources away from tax preparation and toward productivity.

That would be a terrible idea. The average person knows nothing about how much tax income is actually required, and obviously would vote against a tax increase every time. This is part of the problem in California. People were given the right to decide what happens with property taxes. So, they voted against every property tax increase since the 70's. That kept CA prop taxes artificially low, while those same people kept voting for numerous social programs. When the average person is given the choice of what gov't programs to have, they make bad decisions. This has been shown time and again. That's why we have elected representatives.

The average American knows nothing about our political process, does that mean we're going to stop allowing them to vote for their representatives? If we could find a way to actually educate the populace on the actual truths (not the perceived ones), then we'd be better off as a nation.[/quote]This is two very different issues. Nowhere did I say people shouldn't be allowed to vote for their representatives. Quite the opposite. I said they shouldn't be allowed to vote for each individual issue, and that is why we have representatives. See the difference?

I agree that most people are badly misinformed. That's why you don't let them vote on every issue. Having representatives allows them (the representatives) to focus on the issues and be informed. That's the theory anyway. Recent history shows us that our representatives are equally ill informed. But, allowing the public to choose on individual issues (especially issues of taxes & spending) is a terrible idea, and has been demonstrated as such when it has been attempted. (see California)

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

October 17th, 2011, 2:58 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: What is 9/9/9?

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

That would be a terrible idea. The average person knows nothing about how much tax income is actually required, and obviously would vote against a tax increase every time. This is part of the problem in California. People were given the right to decide what happens with property taxes. So, they voted against every property tax increase since the 70's. That kept CA prop taxes artificially low, while those same people kept voting for numerous social programs. When the average person is given the choice of what gov't programs to have, they make bad decisions. This has been shown time and again. That's why we have elected representatives.

TheRealWags wrote:

The average American knows nothing about our political process, does that mean we're going to stop allowing them to vote for their representatives? If we could find a way to actually educate the populace on the actual truths (not the perceived ones), then we'd be better off as a nation.

This is two very different issues. Nowhere did I say people shouldn't be allowed to vote for their representatives. Quite the opposite. I said they shouldn't be allowed to vote for each individual issue, and that is why we have representatives. See the difference?

I agree that most people are badly misinformed. That's why you don't let them vote on every issue. Having representatives allows them (the representatives) to focus on the issues and be informed. That's the theory anyway. Recent history shows us that our representatives are equally ill informed. But, allowing the public to choose on individual issues (especially issues of taxes & spending) is a terrible idea, and has been demonstrated as such when it has been attempted. (see California)

Ok, fine. Let's look at just how great of a job the elected representatives are doing when it comes to taxing and the economy.....oh wait, what's that? They're doing just as crappy nation-wide as your Cali example? So, again, what's the difference if We the People vote on tax items or our so-called elected representatives do? IMO its pretty much same-same and at least if We the People were to vote, it might get Big Corp, Big Union OUT OF the discussion.

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

That would be a terrible idea. The average person knows nothing about how much tax income is actually required, and obviously would vote against a tax increase every time. This is part of the problem in California. People were given the right to decide what happens with property taxes. So, they voted against every property tax increase since the 70's. That kept CA prop taxes artificially low, while those same people kept voting for numerous social programs. When the average person is given the choice of what gov't programs to have, they make bad decisions. This has been shown time and again. That's why we have elected representatives.

TheRealWags wrote:

The average American knows nothing about our political process, does that mean we're going to stop allowing them to vote for their representatives? If we could find a way to actually educate the populace on the actual truths (not the perceived ones), then we'd be better off as a nation.

This is two very different issues. Nowhere did I say people shouldn't be allowed to vote for their representatives. Quite the opposite. I said they shouldn't be allowed to vote for each individual issue, and that is why we have representatives. See the difference?

I agree that most people are badly misinformed. That's why you don't let them vote on every issue. Having representatives allows them (the representatives) to focus on the issues and be informed. That's the theory anyway. Recent history shows us that our representatives are equally ill informed. But, allowing the public to choose on individual issues (especially issues of taxes & spending) is a terrible idea, and has been demonstrated as such when it has been attempted. (see California)

Ok, fine. Let's look at just how great of a job the elected representatives are doing when it comes to taxing and the economy.....oh wait, what's that? They're doing just as crappy nation-wide as your Cali example? So, again, what's the difference if We the People vote on tax items or our so-called elected representatives do? IMO its pretty much same-same and at least if We the People were to vote, it might get Big Corp, Big Union OUT OF the discussion.

So because the current crop of politicians has done a bad job we should just go with the worst possible option and accept that things will always be screwed up? Sorry, not for me.

People will never vote for a tax increase for themselves. Never. Sometimes, that needs to happen. Not massive, draconian increases, but slight adjustments. It's a mature, grown up response to changes in the economy. But people would never, ever vote for that. Similarly, when given the option to have more "given" to them by the government, most people vote for that. Plus, having ballot initiatives opens up the option of manipulation like there is in CA today. At every election, there is a ballot initiative for more spending for something that is labeled "for the children". It always passes. But people don't vote to fund it. Then what you have is a massive budget deficit. With elected representative, new people can be elected to go in and make the tough choices and actually do something about it. If you just leave it up to the same people who made the mess in the first place, nothing ever changes. That's what we have right now in Washington . The same people have been there for a long, long time, making things worse. But, very likely many of them will be gone soon and hopefully the new people will make smarter choices.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson